Empty classes

Code:

---

class Comma {

};

---

This code works fine. My question is, even if I created 3 million Comma objects, would time or space be wasted on this class?

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

class Comma
{

};

int main()
{
        cout<<sizeof(Comma)<<endl;

        return 0;
}

---

The standard says:

Quote:

---

Complete objects and member subobjects of class type shall have nonzero size.

---

Why would you want 3 million objects that do nothing but take up space?

On a related topic, shouldn't:

Code:

---

class Comma;

---

work the same way? Or is it compiler-specific?

>work the same way? Or is it compiler-specific?
It wouldn't work and is well defined by the standard.

Code:

---

class Comma;

---

is an incomplete type, so you can't take its size.

Since each instance is unique, they will each take up some space. Seeing as each instance of the class is the same, however, why don't you make it a singleton, and just point to the singleton instance where you need this class.

Thats odd considering in the book I'm reading entitled "The C++ Standard Library a Tutorial and Reference" the author uses that syntax quite a few times like:

Code:

---

class Error;

void f()
{
...
throw Error();
...
}

---

He also states that his code examples compiled fine with the compiler he was using...:confused:

What you have there is a forward class declaration, which is a lot like a function prototype for classes. In the posts before, s/he was trying to create an actual empty class.

Hope that makes sense,
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prelude
Why would you want 3 million objects that do nothing but take up space?

---

Good point... I was just wondering what was stored if anything in an empty class. Here's my pseudo-real-world problem:

Code:

---

//Base also doesn't have a data member
class Func_Def : public Base {
public:
  //... other functions like these
  static void initial();
  virtual std::string token() const { return "="; }
  virtual void evaluate(const Expression&) const;
};

---

I have a Set class which contains some amount of data (in the form of a std::string for a name, a vector array, etc.). It also contains a pointer to a Func_Def object, which I initialize to NULL.

For instance, for a Set of Expression objects, I could have a Func_Def which makes the Set an Addition set, or a Multiplication Set, or whatever else I wanted.

Instead of initializing my pointer to NULL, I want to initialize it to a new copy of a Comma object. Comma is derived from Func_Def, and also doesn't contain data members. I just want to know if this is a wise choice or not.

Why not just initialize all of the 'Comma' pointers to a singleton instance, since you don't need any instance specific data?

>I was just wondering what was stored if anything in an empty class.
Objects of an empty class can be constructed, destroyed, assigned and copied. So you have at the very least, a default constructor, a copy constructor, an assignment operator, and a destructor. Then there's all of the hidden equipment that comes with every object to glue everything together and keep it working.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Prelude
>I was just wondering what was stored if anything in an empty class.
Objects of an empty class can be constructed, destroyed, assigned and copied. So you have at the very least, a default constructor, a copy constructor, an assignment operator, and a destructor. Then there's all of the hidden equipment that comes with every object to glue everything together and keep it working.

---

non-virtual functions don't have pointers stored in the class.

edit:
My test, shows sizeof(EmptyClass) returns 1. So one byte is kept. No doubt it is bogus data. Plus, struct does the same thing.